New Evidence Corroborates the Quantum Mind

Penrose has some interesting theories but his "quantum mind" Is far from be being proved. I'm all for it but.

Here is a quote from penrose who actually doesnt separate mind from body. It's the (mis)interpretation of his theories that I don't like.

In my own opinion, it is not very helpful, from the scientific point of view, to "think of a dualistic 'mind' that is (logically) external to
the body, somehow influencing the choices that seem to arise in the action of R. If the 'will' could somehow influence Nature's choice of
alternative that occurs with R, then why is an experimenter not able, by the action of 'will power', to influence the result of a quantum
experiment? If this were possible, then violations of the quantum probabilities would surely be rife! For myself, I cannot believe that such a picture
can be close to the truth. To have an external 'mind-stuff' that is not itself subject to physical laws is taking us outside anything that could be
reasonably called a scientific explanation, and is resorting to the viewpoint D (cf. §1.3).

Yet in that recent interview, they speak of proto-conscious as if it were a force, and they say their theory's postulations are open to
materialistic, and spiritualistic, interpretations.

It is plainly in the context of their words...

"The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations
among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?" ask
Hameroff and Penrose in the current review. "This opens a potential Pandora's Box, but our theory accommodates both these views, suggesting
consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic
function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, 'proto-conscious' quantum structure of reality."

Of course Penrose thinks consciousness is external to the body. His whole theory is based on the fact that he believes the brain is non computable and
therefore proto-consciousness originates on the smallest levels or Planck scales of space-time geometry. Also, the whole website that's posted is
quotes from 1994 and 97.

This was before the delayed choice quantum eraser experiments and other delayed choice experiments like the recent entanglement swapping delayed
choice experiments.

So it's a quote that's truly taken out of context. There have been a lot of discoveries since 1994.

Very cool thread - I just mentioned Orch OR in this thread - Time Travelling Porn
Experiment. Dr. Fred Alan Wolf, whom I have messaged a few times, talks about how a quantum theory of mind works regarding memories of the past
and the future - his books Parallel Universes and I think The Yoga of Time Travel are essential starting points.

If you check out the link in my signature, I have a thesis paper link in that philosophy of mine somewhere - it seemed to cover all the bases at the
time, which was back in 2008 or so. Yeah the link is

A Mathematical Evaluation of Consciousness.

Or, you know, I'll just link it straight up : A Mathematical
Evaluation of Consciousness, free to share, all that - it was a thesis paper I researched for my psychology major - I even contacted the writers
of the books I used, including Dr. Hofstadter, an opponent of the idea, at least professionally.

Honestly, I think we are all about to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes. Who's ready? It's going to get really, really complicated. My personal
opinion is this is the direction things are going to move in - with string theory, quantum physics, all of that - crazy stuff -

There's zero evidence that the brain operates and navigates through the information it stores.

There is plenty of evidence of that, from brain scans during activities or lack of them. From trance states (meditation) to image, sound and
imagination recognition even the creation of lies can be detected (better that a normal lie detector that is mostly based on the placebo effect, the
more one believes it works the better its detection is, the weak physiologic clues are easy to forge but not mental activity).

Here's more about the brain scan lie detector tests where brain activity was suppressed and the researchers couldn't figure out who suppressed
it.

Brain-Scan Lie Detectors Just Don’t Work

The researchers could identify which photos were familiar to the participants and which ones were not, with 91 percent accuracy, Wagner said. However,
when the researchers told the participants to try to actively suppress their recognition of the photos that were theirs—to “try to beat the
system”—the researchers had much less success.

Scientists still don’t know how this “suppression” actually works; like so many questions about the inner workings of the human brain, it
remains a mystery. But the fact that so many test subjects could, somehow, do it on command, led the authors of both the Cambridge and Stanford
studies to come to the same conclusions.

In short, brain-scan guilt-detection type tests are beatable, their results are unreliable, and they shouldn’t be used as evidence in court. Except
on television.

The problem is people equate brain activity to consciousness and like I said there's zero evidence to support this. The brain stores information and
of course the brain becomes active in certain areas when this information is accessed. It's just like my DVD player. It stores information on how to
play a DVD and when I push play it becomes active but it takes a user to operate and navigate the information stored on the DVD player.

This is analogous to the brain. The brain isn't a magical device that creates it's own user. The brain stores information and the user operates and
navigates through this stored information.

This goes back to specific memory recall. The brain is active when I recall a specific memory but who initiates the recall of this specific memory?
How can the material brain, tell the material brain that the material brain wishes to recall a specific memory of when I first went swimming?

There needs to be a user interacting with the information stored on the material brain in order to recall specific memories. The most that can be
shown is that the brain is active when I recall these specific memories just like my DVD player is active when I push play. What it can't show is
that the material brain initiated the recall of this specific memory. This is because the brain isn't magical.

Identifying the Potential for fMRI as a Lie Detector The potential to use fMRI as a lie detector was discovered unintentionally by Daniel
Langleben, MD, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, while he was studying adolescent boys with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD).

Using fMRI, he tried to determine whether their brains operated differently from the brains of children without ADHD, and if so, in what areas. While
performing experiments and asking these children to carry out different tasks, he found that these children had difficulty lying. This observation
intrigued him, and he began trying to identify the areas of the brain involved with deception by examining which areas either were missing or did not
function correctly in these children. As a result, he became the first individual to utilize fMRI to study deception.11

Although Dr Langleben has been performing research on this topic for 6 years, many in the scientific and judicial worlds are still skeptical about
whether this form of lie detection should be used in court.12

Deception relies on 2 main principles:
Theory of mind, which allows the person to infer what others are thinking; and
Deontic reasoning, which allows the person to appreciate social rules.13

After extensive testing, it has been shown that regardless of the patient's age, sex, employment, level of education, or time from the action
occurring to the scan does not matter; the lie is still detected in the same region in everyone who is tested.14 Yet skepticism about the legitimacy
of this consideration still exists due to the lack of real-life situation experiments.

What exactly is a quantum vibration? Seriously. This specific juxtaposition of contradictory terminology seems to suggest that no such event is
possible. Especially since a vibration is a repetitive movement from point A to point B and then back again and a quantum of anything is just the one
indivisible unit of whatever it is. The two terms don't seem as if they can possibly join together to describe anything that's real.

Yeah, I did do a Google search, and there's nothing that isn't extremely vague associated with that pair of words.

Science Daily isn't the best source for much of anything other than hype.

Of course the Jury is still out because the user can suppress when they're lying like the previous articled showed. And it's not just that. Of
course a lie will be associated with brain activity but you can't equate brain activity with consciousness. Of course there's brain activity when
the user interacts with the information stored on the material brain. Just like there's activity in my DVD player or TV when the user interacts with
the DVD player or the TV. Like I said, there's no evidence that mind emerges from the material brain. There's no evidence that brain activity can
initiate itself when carrying out a specific tasks like recalling a specific memory from when I was in the Army. Again, who initiates the lie?

If a person had on a blind fold and I was given a 10 and 5 dollar bill and I gave the blind folded person 5 dollars and told them I gave them 10
dollars that would be a lie. When I'm hooked up to the fMRI machine and I'm asked about it, the User has to make the choice to lie about the 5
dollars or tell the truth. The user has to initiate the response which is then associated with brain activity. There's zero evidence that the
material brain initiated the response. It's just an assumption that people just accept as truth because anything that doesn't fit the preconceived
notion that consciousness must emerge from the material brain can't be valid even though there's zero evidence to support this notion.

This is just one reason why I support aspects of Penrose/Hameroff theory of the Quantum Mind.

You should have done a Google search and read the actual paper. It makes no sense to act like Hameroff and Penrose are just making things up. It's
fine if you don't agree with them, but a simple knee jerk reaction like they're just making it up and it's meaningless makes no sense. A simple
read of the paper answers the question:

Abstract

The nature of consciousness, the mechanism by which it occurs in the brain, and its ultimate place in the universe are unknown. We proposed in the mid
1990ʼs that consciousness depends on biologically ‘orchestrated’ coherent quantum processes in collections of microtubules within brain neurons,
that these quantum processes correlate with, and regulate, neuronal synaptic and membrane activity, and that the continuous Schrödinger evolution of
each such process terminates in accordance with the specific Diósi–Penrose (DP) scheme of ‘objective reduction’ (‘OR’) of the quantum
state. This orchestrated OR activity (‘Orch OR’) is taken to result in moments of conscious awareness and/or choice. The DP form of OR is related
to the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and space–time geometry, so Orch OR suggests that there is a connection between the brainʼs biomolecular
processes and the basic structure of the universe. Here we review Orch OR in light of criticisms and developments in quantum biology, neuroscience,
physics and cosmology. We also introduce a novel suggestion of ‘beat frequencies’ of faster microtubule vibrations as a possible source of the
observed electro-encephalographic (‘EEG’) correlates of consciousness. We conclude that consciousness plays an intrinsic role in the
universe.

That Abstract answers your question. All you had to do was take the time to look instead of having a knee jerk reaction. Here's more:

The recent discovery of warm-temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by Anirban
Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates the pair’s theory and suggests
that EEG rhythms also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations.

An important new facet of the theory is introduced. Microtubule quantum vibrations (e.g. in the megahertz frequency range) appear to interfere and
produce much slower EEG “beat frequencies.” Despite a century of clinical use, the underlying origins of EEG rhythms have remained a mystery.
Clinical trials of brief brain stimulation — aimed at microtubule resonances with megahertz mechanical vibrations using transcranial ultrasound —
have shown reported improvements in mood, and may prove useful against Alzheimer’s disease and brain injury in the future.

Again, it's simple and straightforward. Because of the Orch OR activity in Microtubules, quantum vibrations can play a major role in EEG rhythms and
this discovery could help with certain illnesses.

Like I said, you may not agree with them but it belittles your argument when you act like people are just making these things up.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.